This was the right move for them to do, but there will still be a struggle involved for them going forward now. But the way I see it, until they rid the system of the Kinect (instead of forcing it on me) I will not buy it. Not everyone wants this "add on", and it is because of the Kinect we are seeing a higher price point. Give me a bundle with just the machine and I might consider it (now that their policies have changed too).

Yep making people pay 100 dollars more because of a peripheral alot of people wont even use isnt the way to go. Like F34R said its not going to make people buy Kinect games because people choose the gaming experience they want to have regardless. Forcing something on somebody isnt going to change their mind.

They are still requiring you to set up your Xbox One with a connection, without it, what it seems to me so far, is that you can't setup (or activate your Xbox to play games or even work?) without a connection. Then after that one-time setup, you don't have to worry about it.

So whether that meant a day-one patch, not sure but still weird the way they worded it if it is just about the patch...they made it seem like that's the way it will always be.

Day One patch? I didn't know anything about that....I was just assuming that the reason they are requiring a connection on launch is because you need to have an XBL account. After registering an account it doesn't matter if you are online or not (again, my assumption, I didn't read that anywhere official.)

Not to confuse this with what I was saying before. I thought the bet between you and Ixion was regarding the 24-hour check-in, which Ixion was right about before the policies were updated.

EDIT

I do agree that since Ixion/nor you expected Microsoft to update their policies; the bet probably should be voided because of it. But based on what the bet was made on, Ixion was right and you weren't.

I would say both are right, but I wouldn't complete the bet until November when the console launches.

Yep making people pay 100 dollars more because of a peripheral alot of people wont even use isnt the way to go. Like F34R said its not going to make people buy Kinect games because people choose the gaming experience they want to have regardless. Forcing something on somebody isnt going to change their mind.

I would say both are right, but I wouldn't complete the bet until November when the console launches.

They are/were both right in a sense. But F34R never said that Microsoft will update their policies and therefore people will be able to play offline indefinitely. He was holding off for Microsoft to clarify the disc requirement, meaning if the disc is in the drive, will they still be able to play offline or would the restriction still apply?

In the updated policy they have made it a point to mention that gamers will be able to play offline indefinitely like the current Xbox 360 meaning previously (in the old policy) you couldn't do that.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter now does it? If it was a simple bet, it already would have been settled. Now we have a he said/she said scenario, lol.

So youre saying MS wont be creating any Kinect games now that Kinect is mandatory? lol

Now, that's funny! They included that so they could just charge more! Well, he might come back and say to control the dashboard, etc. But then, it would have been better as integrated not a separate accessory.

Now, that's funny! They included that so they could just charge more! Well, he might come back and say to control the dashboard, etc. But then, it would have been better as integrated not a separate accessory.

basically if kinect doesn't do more than what the previous one did then it was a mistake to make it a requirement but i think we're definitely going to see more involvement, if not much in the beginning.

The reason why we saw so many kinect only games with the 1st version is because the hardware was not good enough to to useful in traditional games.

That is no longer an issue. Obviously you will still see kinect only games for the casuals, but now developers won't actually be limited by the kinect hardware when they use it in traditional games.

We'll see. I'm fairly certain this won't be the case at all for most hardcore games. The tried and true (and better) controller will be our best friend as usual. Kinect is such a waste of time and energy and it truly sucks that it is forced on the majority of us that hate it.

At the end of the day a gimmick is a gimmick. It's a PR talking point and nothing more. The same goes for the "glorious cloud".

The reason why we saw so many kinect only games with the 1st version is because the hardware was not good enough to to useful in traditional games.

That is no longer an issue. Obviously you will still see kinect only games for the casuals, but now developers won't actually be limited by the kinect hardware when they use it in traditional games.

that may be part of the reason but another big part was because it wasn't a standard device. developers aren't going to invest in something that isn't standard.

Sony cleverly made move a standard too but most people don't know that. though i'm still skeptical as to why they didn't bundle the camera...me thinks they wanted an advantage against MS and did that as a last-moment thing. or they wouldn't have shown it with the reveal.

how useful is the DS4 move implementation without a camera? they must expect people to already have the previous eye camera or just buy the new camera for certain games that will have the feature...which is stupid because this will limit developers from going all out, they will always be thinking about how many PS4 cameras are out there before implementing Move features.

this is where MS will succeed. what matters in the end is how far they will go with their support as even with everything in place, doesn't mean it will necessarily go far but it definitely will have the potential that the PS4's motion devices won't have.

Originally Posted by unicron7

Kinect is such a waste of time and energy and it truly sucks that it is forced on the majority of us that hate it.

How is Kinect forced on gamers? If you're talking about 2.0 then your opinion is invalid because we don't know how Kinect 2.0 is and how it will be implemented.

How is Kinect forced on gamers? If you're talking about 2.0 then your opinion is invalid because we don't know how Kinect 2.0 is and how it will be implemented.

Because it is...it's in the box at launch and I don't want it in there. It will serve no great purpose just like it did on the 360. Gimmick. I'd much rather have a dedicated gaming console instead of all the extra media garbage.

We'll see. I'm fairly certain this won't be the case at all for most hardcore games. The tried and true (and better) controller will be our best friend as usual. Kinect is such a waste of time and energy and it truly sucks that it is forced on the majority of us that hate it.

At the end of the day a gimmick is a gimmick. It's a PR talking point and nothing more. The same goes for the "glorious cloud".

Kinect will not replace the controller. It will augment it. It is not a wast of time and energy. Kinect can finally be used to its maximum potential since the hardware is no longer holding developers back and it is now part of every X1 console. The ball is in the developers court on this.

Originally Posted by Sufi

that may be part of the reason but another big part was because it wasn't a standard device. developers aren't going to invest in something that isn't standard.

Sony cleverly made move a standard too but most people don't know that. though i'm still skeptical as to why they didn't bundle the camera...me thinks they wanted an advantage against MS and did that as a last-moment thing. or they wouldn't have shown it with the reveal.

how useful is the DS4 move implementation without a camera? they must expect people to already have the previous eye camera or just buy the new camera for certain games that will have the feature...which is stupid because this will limit developers from going all out, they will always be thinking about how many PS4 cameras are out there before implementing Move features.

this is where MS will succeed. what matters in the end is how far they will go with their support as even with everything in place, doesn't mean it will necessarily go far but it definitely will have the potential that the PS4's motion devices won't have.

Not really. Move is integrated into the DS4, but you need the camera which is sold separately. I'd expect the situation to play out like the original kinect did on the 360 for move on the PS4.

Kinect has real potential, I believe we will see that potential fleshed out with this upcoming generation.

Originally Posted by unicron7

Because it is...it's in the box at launch and I don't want it in there. It will serve no great purpose just like it did on the 360. Gimmick. I'd much rather have a dedicated gaming console instead of all the extra media garbage.

Good luck with that. The PS2/Gamecube/Xbox were the last dedicated gaming consoles.

There is nothing wrong with having media features in a console. I don't see how anyone can say that is a negative. It's only a negative when that's all the company seems to talk about. The console having it isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

Not really. Move is integrated into the DS4, but you need the camera which is sold separately.

Yea I mentioned that.

I'd expect the situation to play out like the original kinect did on the 360 for move on the PS4.

That would be awful. I'm expecting Kinect 2.0 to do much better than it did last generation. I'm not speaking about sales, I'm speaking about implementation and real use.

Kinect has real potential, I believe we will see that potential fleshed out with this upcoming generation.

and what am i saying?

Good luck with that. The PS2/Gamecube/Xbox were the last dedicated gaming consoles.

How is PS4 not MORE dedicated, explain to me. This comment made no sense. You're speaking about software...we're talking about hardware and focus/direction.

Originally Posted by sainraja

There is nothing wrong with having media features in a console. I don't see how anyone can say that is a negative. It's only a negative when that's all the company seems to talk about. The console having it isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

more importantly, that's not an issue when it's software-based...that's not the focus. when it becomes that you're designing your console around that (a la PS3 with BD) then it becomes a problem.

The reason why we saw so many kinect only games with the 1st version is because the hardware was not good enough to to useful in traditional games. That is no longer an issue. Obviously you will still see kinect only games for the casuals, but now developers won't actually be limited by the kinect hardware when they use it in traditional games.

So we agree that we will still see Kinect only games for the casuals. So with Kinect being mandatory its a pretty safe bet there will be a focus on it. Maybe not right away though since casuals tend not to pay launch prices. The thought of Kinect being used in traditional games is a turn off for me since I have no interest in motion control. That goes for Move as well. But Sony isnt forcing that on me.

Because it is...it's in the box at launch and I don't want it in there. It will serve no great purpose just like it did on the 360. Gimmick. I'd much rather have a dedicated gaming console instead of all the extra media garbage.

Exactly. Make a Damn sku that doesn't have the Kinect in it about cut some other features to make it look like it's the other is worthy of a $499. Then offer the one without for $399. But MS showed so far they are not too keen on giving options.

There is nothing wrong with having media features in a console. I don't see how anyone can say that is a negative. It's only a negative when that's all the company seems to talk about. The console having it isn't a bad thing, in my opinion.

I agree. I like watching Netflix on my PS3 for example. But theres a difference between including it and focusing on it like you said.

Yea I mentioned that.That would be awful. I'm expecting Kinect 2.0 to do much better than it did last generation. I'm not speaking about sales, I'm speaking about implementation and real use.

and what am i saying?

How is PS4 not MORE dedicated, explain to me. This comment made no sense. You're speaking about software...we're talking about hardware and focus/direction.

more importantly, that's not an issue when it's software-based...that's not the focus. when it becomes that you're designing your console around that (a la PS3 with BD) then it becomes a problem.

PS4 is more dedicated than PS2 to gaming. I can prove this.

You aren't making much sense with this post. I don' really understand what you are trying to say in the 1st half of your post.

Regarding the PS2. The only non gaming functionality the PS2 had was playing dvd's/cd's. There really wasn't anything else it could do beside play games. So Sony and all the developers were focused on the games. Which is why you saw so many games come out for the PS2.

I don't see what basis there is for you to say the PS4 is a more dedicated gaming console than the PS2 was. If the 360/ps3/wii couldn't outdo the PS2 on the games front, what makes you think the PS4/X1/Wii u will then they are just evolutions of their predecessor consoles (for the most part).

Day One patch? I didn't know anything about that....I was just assuming that the reason they are requiring a connection on launch is because you need to have an XBL account. After registering an account it doesn't matter if you are online or not (again, my assumption, I didn't read that anywhere official.)

Not to confuse this with what I was saying before. I thought the bet between you and Ixion was regarding the 24-hour check-in, which Ixion was right about before the policies were updated.

EDIT

I do agree that since Ixion/nor you expected Microsoft to update their policies; the bet probably should be voided because of it. But based on what the bet was made on, Ixion was right and you weren't.

I'll have to find the article with the interview... it's a day one patch, but that was the plan anyways.

They are/were both right in a sense. But F34R never said that Microsoft will update their policies and therefore people will be able to play offline indefinitely. He was holding off for Microsoft to clarify the disc requirement, meaning if the disc is in the drive, will they still be able to play offline or would the restriction still apply?

In the updated policy they have made it a point to mention that gamers will be able to play offline indefinitely like the current Xbox 360 meaning previously (in the old policy) you couldn't do that.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter now does it? If it was a simple bet, it already would have been settled. Now we have a he said/she said scenario, lol.

Looks like...the current one-time requirement does fit the parameter.

Yeah, I'd never hold a bet to something that isn't released lol. Hell, they could scrap the Xbox One before it launched lol. We'll have to see how it is, like I've said since the beginning, when it is in a home. I've known since the day the drm was announced that it was going to change. I've said it numerous times. Ixon, on the other hand, said the drm wasn't going away because they'd have to change their policies, and they wouldn't do that.

Ok, but sure.. if the bet needs to be done now, I will wear whatever he sends according to the rules, no problem with that. We all know I've been right the entire time.

So we agree that we will still see Kinect only games for the casuals. So with Kinect being mandatory its a pretty safe bet there will be a focus on it. Maybe not right away though since casuals tend not to pay launch prices. The thought of Kinect being used in traditional games is a turn off for me since I have no interest in motion control. That goes for Move as well. But Sony isnt forcing that on me.

There isn't any reason for Microsoft to do what it did for the 360 with the X1. If you recall kinect came out in 2010. 5 years into the 360 lifecycle. Remember the norm was ~6 years for a console lifecycle. Kinect was used to give the 360 the legs for the additional 3 years it would be the primary console offering from microsoft. I don't expect these next gen consoles to have 7/8 year lifecycles before being succeeded by another console. So there is no point/need in microsoft focusing on casual gamers in the latter part of the console generation like they did for the 360. (and lets say they might do that, I'm fairly certain that MS made the X1 more "futureproof" than the 360 as a just in case measure for a more drawn out console generation)

You may be turned off from kinect now, but if developers are able to make use of it properly in their games, I'm betting that will change.

Originally Posted by ps3freak18

Exactly. Make a Damn sku that doesn't have the Kinect in it about cut some other features to make it look like it's the other is worthy of a $499. Then offer the one without for $399. But MS showed so far they are not too keen on giving options.

It is worth the money. Accounting for inflation, the $400 launch 360 would go for $477 today. For $500 you get a more powerful/capable console and kinect. Pretty good addition for an additional $33.